Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36414973›Full record

ArticleBiomaterials research2022

Electroconductive PEDOT nanoparticle integrated scaffolds for spinal cord tissue repair.

Aleksandra Serafin, Mario Culebras Rubio, Marta Carsi, Pilar Ortiz-Serna, Maria J Sanchis, Atul K Garg, J Miguel Oliveira, Jacob Koffler, Maurice N Collins

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Biomaterials research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 70 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.

Aleksandra SerafinSchool of Engineering, Bernal Institute, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
Mario Culebras RubioMaterials Science Institute (ICMUV), Universitat de València, c/ Catedrático José, Beltrán 2, 46980, Paterna, Valencia, Spain.
Marta CarsiInstituto de Automática E Informática Industrial, Universitat Politècnica de Valencia, 46022, Valencia, Spain.
Pilar Ortiz-SernaDepartamento de Termodinámica Aplicada, Instituto Tecnológico de La Energía, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camí de Vera S/N, 46022, Valencia, Spain.
Maria J SanchisDepartamento de Termodinámica Aplicada, Instituto Tecnológico de La Energía, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camí de Vera S/N, 46022, Valencia, Spain.
Atul K GargManufacturing Technology and Innovation Global Supply Chain, Johnson & Johnson, Bridgewater, NJ, 08807, USA.
J Miguel Oliveira3B's Research Group, I3Bs-Research Institute on Biomaterials, Biodegradables and Biomimetics, University of Minho, Headquarters of the European Institute of Excellence On Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, AveParkParque de Ciência E Tecnologia, Zona Industrial da Gandra, Barco, 4805-017, Guimarães, Portugal.
Jacob KofflerDepartment of Neuroscience, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, 92093, USA. ykoffler@ucsd.edu.
Maurice N CollinsSchool of Engineering, Bernal Institute, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland. maurice.collins@ul.ie.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2536-4508
Instituto Tecnológico de la Energía · ESUniversity of Limerick · IEBarco (Belgium) · BECentro Tecnológico de Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación en tecnologías de la Información y las Comunicaciones (TIC) · ESJohnson & Johnson (United States) · USParc Científic de la Universitat de València · ESUniversity of California San Diego · US

Funding

Irish Research Council for Science, Engineering and Technology EPSPG/2020/78
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHostile environment around the lesion site following spinal cord injury (SCI) prevents the re-establishment of neuronal tracks, thus significantly limiting the regenerative capability. Electroconductive scaffolds are emerging as a promising option for SCI repair, though currently available conductive polymers such as polymer poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) polystyrene sulfonate (PEDOT:PSS) present poor biofunctionality and biocompatibility, thus limiting their effective use in SCI tissue engineering (TE) treatment strategies.

methodsPEDOT NPs were synthesized via chemical oxidation polymerization in miniemulsion. The conductive PEDOT NPs were incorporated with gelatin and hyaluronic acid (HA) to create gel:HA:PEDOT-NPs scaffolds. Morphological analysis of both PEDOT NPs and scaffolds was conducted via SEM. Further characterisation included dielectric constant and permittivity variances mapped against morphological changes after crosslinking, Young's modulus, FTIR, DLS, swelling studies, rheology, in-vitro, and in-vivo biocompatibility studies were also conducted.

resultsIncorporation of PEDOT NPs increased the conductivity of scaffolds to 8.3 × 10

conclusionsBased on these results, the incorporation of PEDOT NPs into Gel:HA biomaterial scaffolds enhances not only the conductive capabilities of the material, but also the provision of a healing environment around lesions in SCI. Hence, gel:HA:PEDOT-NPs scaffolds are a promising TE option for stimulating regeneration for SCI.

Indexed as

Electroconductive scaffoldsPEDOT nanoparticlesSpinal cord injuryTissue engineering

Identifiers

PMID36414973
PMCPMC9682832
OpenAlexW4309673390

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.